Pages

Translate

Friday, September 22, 2017

Pregnant women’s urine
fluoride levels are linked to lower intelligence in their offspring, according to a
US government-sponsored study published in Environmental
Health Perspectives (September 2017), and at levels commonly found in US adults.

Fluoridation lobbyists
cavalierly dismissed this study because it was conducted on women from Mexico which makes it irrelevant to the US, they claim. However,
urine fluoride levels in healthy US adults in US fluoridated areas are similar and is a measure of one's total fluoride intake from all sources.

The lead researcher, Dr.
Howard Hu, also disagrees with their assessment. He is quoted in the media as saying “This is a very rigorous
epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It’s directly related to whether
fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children. So, to say it has no
relevance to the folks in the US, seems disingenuous.”

Most US water suppliers add unnecessary fluoride chemicals into
public water supplies in a failed attempt to reduce tooth decay for political
not scientific reasons.

Hu says the study “also
suggests that the prenatal nervous system may be more sensitive to fluoride
compared to that of school-aged children.”

This new careful
investigation, by respected researchers from respected institutions and
published in a respected peer-reviewed journal, adds to a frightening trend. Over 300 studies now link fluoride to neurotoxic effects – 50 of them human – over 20 at fluoride
levels allowed in US water supplies.

Taken together, with this new study added, the evidence is now very strong that fluoride exposures common in the USA is causing IQ loss in at least some children.

A New Zealand study (Broadbent, et al) is often touted as proof
fluoride is not neurotoxic. However,
that study showed no difference in total fluoride intake between children in
fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas since most of the children in
nonfluoridated areas were given fluoride supplements.

According to the Fluoride
Action Network (FAN), “The loss of IQ is very large. The child of
a mother who was drinking 1 ppm fluoride water would be predicted to have 5 to 6 IQ points lower than if the mother had drunk water
with close to zero fluoride in it… Such a drop of IQ in the whole population
would half the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and double the
number of mentally handicapped (IQ less than 70).”

The researchers adjusted for a wide range of
other factors including lead, mercury, socio-economic status, smoking, alcohol
use, and health problems during pregnancy.

Urine fluoride is a good indicator of total fluoride intake
from all sources. When drinking water is the dominant source of fluoride, urine
fluoride and water fluoride are usually about the same So, the average urine
fluoride level in this study of 0.9 mg/L implies that women were ingesting the
same amount of fluoride as women drinking water with 0.9 mg/L fluoride,
according to FAN.

Up until 2011, government agencies advised artificially
fluoridating water up to 1.2 mg/L.
Because of the growing dental fluorosis epidemic, they revised it downward to 0.7 mg/L.
But it’s just a recommendation. Not all water suppliers comply. Also,
many US
communities are served naturally fluoridated water up to 4 mg/L.

Fluoridated water is not the only fluoride source that adds to the bodies total fluoride burden. Virtually all foods and beverages have some
fluoride. Fluoride is absorbed into the bloodstream from topical application of
fluoridated dental products and is a component of air pollution.

Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician who studies environmental exposures and health problems at New York University Langone Health said to Newsweek: “This is a very well-conducted study, and it
raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water. These new
insights raise concerns that the prenatal period may be highly vulnerable and
may require additional reconsideration.”

Fluoridation
lobbyists, such as the American Dental Association, the American Fluoridation
Society and the Children’s Dental Health Project (sponsored by the AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics) erroneous claim that

Mexican mothers had fluoride exposures higher than found in
the USA
and therefore the study isn’t applicable to American women.
They fail to understand the urine levels come from a mix of
sources. What’s relevant is that the fluoride levels found in Mexican
mothers urine is similar to that found in Americans regardless of the sources of
exposure.

After fluoride gets into the body and can be measured in the urine, as was done
in this study, it is immaterial what the original source of that fluoride is. The
fluoride may have come from fluoridated water, fluoridated salt, swallowed
toothpaste, fluoride supplements, dental office fluoride treatments and/or air pollution. Once fluoride is ingested or absorbed into the bloodstream, it is all the same in terms of toxic effects on the fetus. The
developing brain in the fetus can't tell which source the fluoride came
from.

This study was performed by respected leading researchers in
environmental neurotoxins. It was funded by $3 million in grants from the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. It was published in the premier journal for environmental health after undergoing peer-review.

Understandably, this study cuts to the heart of the dental
profession's support of fluoride to combat dental decay. But rather than a
knee-jerk reaction to deny the importance of this study in the interests of
teeth, perhaps dentists should take a more holistic perspective and consider the
entire child, including his cognitive development. How many IQ points loss
would you consider is worth one cavity prevented???